Media Criticism

Everyone who has stayed up late to watch bad movies and old TV shows is familiar with ads from non-profit groups soliciting funds to feed the poor. These commercials use heart-rending images of children sleeping in streets, drinking dirty water and dealing with other hardships to guilt donations out of TV viewers. The negative stigma of infomercials and the deeper roots of starvation throughout the world make these commercials ineffective.

Foreign Policy’s interview with UN World Food Program director Josette Sheeran provides a good overview of the issues involved in feeding the world. Sheeran’s responses to questions about the scope of the looming food crisis show that bureaucratic inactivity and narrow-minded approaches to humanitarian aid are the primary culprits. I am sure that Sheeran and other experts on this issue could point out several other reasons for poor food distribution if given more space in public policy periodicals.

It is impossible to get food from point A to point B anywhere in the world without paved roads. The lack of roads and highways in many places throughout the world lead to gathering relief packets in airports instead of aid facilities. We need to offer significant portions of each relief package toward building highway systems and public transit networks that can facilitate economic stimulus.

The bigger issue lies in the massive boondoggle that is the ethanol and biofuel industry. These alternative fuels may seem attractive with the rising price of gasoline but they are draining food surpluses. The use of corn and consumable organic materials in the creation of gas-biofuel blends is an affront to the billions of people who may starve in the next century. We need to focus on clean electric, solar and wind power to achieve affordable fuel without placing our energy burden on the backs of the poor. There is no singular solution to the problem of starvation and malnutrition in the developing world. We need to heed the warnings of people like Josette Sheeran who have seen suffering communities in person.

Foreign Policy has compiled a list of the world’s worst religious leaders ahead of the Pope’s visit to the United States. While Benedict XVI is not on the list of the world’s most insidious religious figures, the list does leave something to the imagination in terms of context. The figures listed in this brief web entry include Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah (Shi’ite), Sri Lankan monk Athrualiye Rathana (Theravada Buddhism) and Rabbi Dov Lior (Hassidic Judaism) along with notable quotes highlighting their level of vitriol. I can agree with the basic premise of the list though I think it is irresponsible to leave it hanging on the Internet.

The leaders of religious sects, branches and outlying cults are only as despicable as the people they trick. As a former Catholic, I cannot blame Pope Benedict XVI for some of the extremes of Catholicism. I also do not blame the Pope for the past transgressions of the Catholic Church any more so than I could blame Dov Lio, Athrualiye Rathana and others for their group’s histories. There is a need for accountability by the faithful in the collective action of their religion because they act as representatives of their beliefs on a daily basis.

This list paints the totality of religious belief and faith in a bad light. I am an agnostic because I don’t think there is any point in searching for God when there are so many other things to discover. The fact that God, Allah and other deities are used in the name of war, hatred, rape, waste and human deprivation is larger than the atrocities of the leaders highlighted by Foreign Policy. If nobody believed Dov Lior and other eccentric religious leaders, these figures would recede into the night. It is time for everyone to step away from total immersion into religion and think about the dangerous effects of falling too far into atheism, religiosity and other extremes in daily life.

A recent interview between Foreign Policy magazine and economic scholar Allan Meltzer should be ready by anyone who holds on to the notion that the economy will be fine in the short term. Meltzer describes a scenario where the Federal Reserve is reliving the oscillation of the 1970s between a primary concern with inflation to an equal concern for unemployment. Meltzer’s assessment of the overreaching of Congress as well as the subservient nature of the Federal Reserve is spot-on in explaining our economic woes.

Meltzer attributes the current economic downturn to deregulation of private finances and the Federal Reserve’s response to public pressure with interest rate decreases. It is clear that Meltzer’s first point follows the historical path of America’s economy going back to our origins. The notion of a Federal Reserve was argued within Congress and political circles going back to the Reconstruction period. The debate over the use of gold or silver as a primary financial tool in America raged at the end of the 19th century. These debates do not take place today because we are more comfortable with credit cards, fiat currency and a federal government that shuffles papers during economic hard times.

The latter point by Meltzer shows the lack of independence by “independent�? bodies within the federal government. The Federal Reserve should act as an independent arbiter of America’s finances in the same way that the Supreme Court is designed as an insulated judicial body. The larger point, however, is that the Federal Reserve cannot solve all of our economic problems. We need to deal with state and federal budget deficits as well as household budget problems to get the economy back on stable footing.

It is easy for reporters and politicians to point to polling information while espousing an anti-war stance in dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign countries. We have turned “scientific�? polls by media outlets all over the ideological spectrum into gospel truth because we value numbers. It is important for the media to highlight the pulse of the military whenever we speak about the state of our national defenses.

Foreign Policy has conducted a survey of over 3,000 mid- and high-ranked officers from all service branches regarding the state of the U.S. military. I have cited Foreign Policy in past articles because it does a fantastic job of covering international issues from all points on the political spectrum. There are a few findings in the magazine’s U.S. Military Index that I want to highlight in this post that illuminate the direction needed by our next president in leading the Armed Forces.

The first subheader in the U.S. Military Index deals with America’s preparedness for “the next war.�? The results demonstrate the lack of confidence by military officers in Congress and the executive office in directing military might against other nations. The average officer did not see the United States as ascending above an average level of preparedness for combat in Syria, Iran, North Korea and the Taiwan Strait. The lowest rating for military preparedness for officers polled rested in Iran which should give every political leader pause before spewing vitriol.

The most interesting subheader in this Index was called “Filling the Ranks.�? We have experienced a decline in young people signing up for the military since going to war with Iraq in spring 2003. Our diminished military forces have led to strains throughout every service while forcing National Guard troops to leave home for the dangerous fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan. The soldiers interviewed by Foreign Policy voted overwhelmingly for allowing foreign permanent residents to serve in the military for full citizenship. There was also strong support for lowering education standards, increasing enlistment bonuses and increasing maximum age restrictions to bolster forces. Multiple solutions will need to be instituted in our enlistment of new soldiers if we want to maintain our warring ways.

Everyone concerned about the state of our armed forces should check out the entire report in Foreign Policy. We need to take a personal stake in the overall state of our military beyond relatives, friends and neighbors overseas. I have little hope that the current crop of U.S. Representatives and Senators will see reason when looking at a report formed from conversations with military officers.

Stefan Theil has written an indictment of the French and German educational systems in the January/February issue of Foreign Policy that expresses one of the fundamental problems with educational curricula. Theil is the European economics editor for Newsweek and points out the anti-capitalist rhetoric used in standard textbooks in the Old World. He speaks about educational language that discourages small business growth, encourages a reliance on the welfare state and helps continue the form of static economics that harmed both countries in the Cold War.

Theil points out THE issue in modern economics which is the dearth of instruction on economic systems. No economist would completely endorse mercantilism in this day and age but it is an important system to understand because it ushered in modern capitalism. Western economics teachers and professors may not like communism but their students need to know about the perversion of Karl Marx’s ideas. While French and German educators may not like capitalism, they are setting their students back by not providing a full picture of the modern world.

A generation of students who do not understand economic distinctions will become a generation of leaders who cannot speak the same language as their counterparts. I think the media, whether it is mainstream outlets or alternative sources, can play a role in fighting the isolation of economic education. Nightly news shows can stop placing blame and rewards for the global economy on a single individual or organization. Newspapers can provide tutorials on trade deficits, exchange rates and other economic issues that trickle down to the average consumer. Theil is correct in criticizing France and Germany but public education in the United States is suffering from similar problems. We need to expand economic education beyond the bounds of the classroom

I remember watching the seminal western The Searchers in a film studies course and hearing about how great the movie was from my instructor. The company line was that the sets were wonderful, the direction was magnificent and John Wayne was prototypically American in his portrayal of a hardened cowboy. I think portrayals about Africa are similar to John Wayne movies in their use of Westernized versions of Africa. The dangerous part about these portrayals is that they seem to confirm our diplomatic history with the continent. The one advantage of Wayne’s movies was that the wars had been completed during filming.

There are two articles in the recent issue of GOOD Magazine that cover the issue of American diplomacy with Africa. An article by Sasha Polakow-Suransky speaks to frustrations with portraying Africa with notable exceptions like Don Cheadle’s turn in Hotel Rwanda. The second article by Andrew Woods discusses the use of poor Africans as contractors in Iraq. These articles point to a frustrating development in dealing with Africa. The power of the pocket book is used to donate to charities headed by celebrities in a shallow effort to help faraway Africans without dealing with fundamental diplomatic issues that keeps aid out of the hands of those who need it. We are suffering from Western guilt in dealing with former colonies pushed down by centuries of racism.

Everyone should be pissed about the way Africa is addressed in our daily life. Voters should demand a conversation with politicians and business leaders beyond the superficial discussion of solving the AIDS crisis. Africans need roads, phones, food and homes instead of surplus grain and a sympathetic smile. Consumers need to boycott movies where actors without any knowledge of Africa try to speak to intensely parochial issues on the continent. In the end, American consumers have an immense amount of power to direct money, time and energy toward changing the system instead of feeding money into our own corrupt government into the mostly corrupt governments in Africa.

Anyone who has read past entries on Media Critiques is aware that I dislike the current state of polling and the use of polling by the media. Polling experts claim that the numbers they produce on topics ranging from the latest fashions to the popularity of the president can be extrapolated to the entire population. This type of certainty demonstrates a failure by seemingly intelligent pollsters to recognize that polling is a corollary of marketing and not of academia.

The impetus for my latest rage about polling comes from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing a Zogby poll that claims 52% of Americans would support an attack on Iran. Writer Michael Meyer points out a number of faults with the poll including the use of only two choices to respond to a hypothetical (yes, HYPOTHETICAL) completion of nuclear weapons by Iranians in the near future. Meyer fails to point out that Zogby may be the worst of the worst when it comes to polling due to the poor wording of poll questions. I shouldn’t push Zogby polls forward as the king of bad information as every polling company shares a similar stake in my contempt.

I am not only concerned with the appearance of political support for an Iranian war inherent within the Zogby poll. My concern spreads into the 2008 presidential election where it appears that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination without a problem. The ignorance of Washington elites of what real life Americans outside of polling groups feel about the political scene gives polling its power. Polls are a gauge of the perspectives of a few people that allow politicians and executives to proceed with their own initiatives with the thin veil of public support. Polls, like the Bible, can be interpreted in a number of ways. It is time to stop giving public opinion polls such a large role in our lives and show our support for an issue by picking up a phone, putting pen to paper and screaming out loud to people in the Washington echo chamber.

The title seems draconian but the promise by President Pervez Musharraf that he will relinquish his military uniform (again) and open the presidency to the democratic process must be fulfilled. Coverage of the Pakistani situation has been rampant in the mainstream media as well as alternative media sources as this ambivalent ally in the war on terror turns to hell in a hand basket. We must look past the promise of democracy in the midst of chaos to begin earnest steps toward realizing democracy in Pakistan.

I don’t think regular readers will be surprised by my views on the war on terror. A war against an idea, a tool of oppression and anarchy is foolhardy. The only thing more foolish than fighting terror is using feckless thugs, authoritarians and incompetent bureaucrats as our allies. In the same way that America got into bed with all manner of politician to fight Communism in the Cold War, America is allying itself with anyone as long as they say the right things about terrorism.

The Bush Administration may be content by pushing Musharraf in November 2007 that may never happen in January 2008 but Americans concerned with foreign policy want more than that. I think that the media coverage of riots, the house arrest of political reformers like Benazir Bhutto and the pressure applied by the West on Pakistan has been outstanding. Media pressure will only do so much against a flailing dictator like Musharraf and Americans need to push their representatives for action.

We need to mobilize an international coalition with the assistance of India and the European Union to enforce Musharraf’s promised steps. The occasion of stabilizing Pakistan may offer America an opportunity to offer an olive branch to Russia. It is important to utilize the United Nations General Assembly to promote the idea of peace keepers and international election observers in Pakistan to make sure that every vote is counted and every ballot has more than the name Musharraf available.

Above all else, voters throughout the United States need to press the candidates in both parties to come out tough for anything but a legitimately elected government in Pakistan. If America is going to be an interventionist power, we must work within the bounds of international politics and ally ourselves with nations that support democratically elected governments. We cannot afford Pakistan to fall into chaos as the Asian continent becomes critical to 21st century political, economic and social development.

The terms “People’s Party�? and “Populism�? have changed drastically since the days of silverites and gold bugs in the 1890s. The People’s Party in the United States tried to bring in labor, women’s groups and limited numbers of African Americans into an alliance against moneyed interests that began political rule that continues today. American populists in the 1890s were imperfect and lacked the sophistication of major party activists but desired a political system geared toward the average person.

Today’s great “populists�? include racists like Christoph Blocher of the Swiss People’s Party which has grown into the largest political party in Switzerland. Blocher has used language familiar to historians of Central Europe to lash out against immigrants in the hopes of gaining seats in Parliament. The rush of ignorant voters worried about Muslims and the polyglot masses entering the land of chocolate and watches helped push the SVP into a plurality in Swiss government.

Switzerland has always been associated in my mind with political accommodation and reason. The seven seat cabinet that has helped balanced power between the major parties since World War II is beginning to resemble a Klan meeting. Blocher and another represented of the SVP will sit in the cabinet, breaking up the balanced approach taking to Swiss politics for five decades. By no means is Christoph Blocher a facsimile of authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler; Switzerland has an insufficient infrastructure and an unwilling populous for institutionalization of hatred. My concern is that Blocher’s victory will help encourage voters in surrounding nations to choose nationalists and right wing nuts.

The Flemish Block in Belgium and the National Front Party in France are only two examples of nationalist parties cloaking racist language behind the veil of populism. The hedge on growing conservatism and nationalism in Poland in the most recent election is diminished when you look at Civic Platform’s policies. Civic Platform was successful in wresting power from the Law and Order Party under the corrupt Kaczynski brothers. While Donald Tusk is a moderate leader that will demand EU involvement and withdrawal from Iraq, Civic Platform and Law and Order are similar in their desire to maintain a conservative domestic government in Poland. In the end, nationalism is pushing past traditional conservatism to take hold of the European public’s imagination.

I understand that the European welfare state has caused certain logistical problems in nations like Belgium and France. The use of foreigners and minorities as scapegoats for economic and social woes is nothing new; in fact, it shows a lack of imagination by popular leaders like Blocher. Every opposition party and minority coalition in Europe needs to rise up and save that this type of narrow-minded, one-dimensional political rhetoric will not stand in the 21st century. European voters should not be duped by nationalists claiming to shut down borders when the European continent is becoming more open than it has ever been. My only hope is that the Swiss people understand that the addition of political power to Christoph Blocher’s portfolio can only equal long term problems before the next parliamentary elections.

The world of news changed in 1980 when Ted Turner created the Cable News Network (CNN) to leave traditional media in the dust. CNN laid down the gauntlet for 24 hour cable news banality and without Turner’s work we may not have blowhards like Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. While his past holdings include the Atlanta Hawks (one of the worst franchises in the NBA) and TBS (one of the worst cable stations around), CNN and 24 hour news is Turner’s legacy.

In a recent interview with Foreign Policy, Turner took a few minutes to show off his credentials as a philanthropist. Turner helped found the Goodwill Games and his significant donations to the United Nations have strengthened the institution’s place in the United States. Wait a minute, his work has NOT strengthened the United Nations in America. Turner’s efforts to change his image from a wild-eyed Southerner into a poor man’s Al Gore are clearly failing.

I would recommend checking out the interview on the Foreign Policy website to see Turner weave his web of generalities about climate change, the United Nations and the state of media. Mr. Turner is still bent that CNN has not killed newspapers, print publications and other forms of media. He also name-drops Jacques Cousteau in speaking about hope. I admire Turner in the sheer amount of money he is willing to donate to a good cause but the United Nations is the wrong apparatus for change. I think Turner should work with other billionaires to lead the push for a new international organization that is more responsive than the United Nations to deal with today’s global issues.